IBJNews

Homeownership losing cachet due to housing bust, job losses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Low interest rates, depressed home prices and new government incentives for buyers continue to make a compelling case for homeownership. But market observers doubt the beneficial conditions will be enough to maintain or grow the percentage of Americans who own a home, even in Indiana, where rates have consistently exceeded the national average.

That’s because a new generation of potential homebuyers are less eager, or able, to jump into a mortgage. Houses aren’t seen as can’t-miss investments anymore after so much equity disappeared, and financing is hard to come by for all but the most qualified of buyers.

Then there’s the issue of jobs. Unemployment hit a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in October. The most recent figure for Indiana stood at 9.6 percent.

Fresh college grads without a job are moving back in with their parents, and those who land an entry-level position are more likely to opt for the flexibility of renting a place for a few years.

“What’s permanent and long-lasting is the feeling you don’t have to buy a house as soon as you leave college,” said Steve LaMotte, senior vice president in the multi-housing group for CB Richard Ellis. “Watching friends or family or living through a foreclosure yourself, while certainly not as scary as someone who lived through the Depression, it causes people to rethink homeownership.”

Homeownership nationwide peaked at just above 69 percent in 2004 and has been steadily dropping since, to 67.6 percent as of Oct. 31, Census Bureau data shows. A University of Utah study predicts the national homeownership rate will continue to drop, to 63.5 percent by 2020, a level not seen since the mid-1980s.

In the Indianapolis area, homeownership peaked in 2006 at about 76 percent and has since fallen to 71.8 percent as of Oct. 31, Census data show.

Indiana has outpaced the U.S. homeownership rate for as long as the government has tracked it: The state has registered above 70 percent homeownership since the 1960s, largely because of an abundance of cheap, flat land on which to build affordable housing. And market observers expect Indiana to continue to clock in with higher homeownership rates than the national average.

Most folks around here who lost homes to foreclosure probably will be homeowners again, unlike in some frothy markets like California, said George Tikijian of locally based brokerage Tikijian Associates.

“They’ll only stay away for as long as their credit forces them to,” he said. “[Homeownership] is not the panacea it’s been promoted as, but I also think when people have the ability in the area they afford it, they are going to choose to own a home. I suspect the American dream will remain as hoped-for as ever.”

Nationwide, the under-35 age group has registered the steepest homeownership drop, falling to 39.8 percent at the end of October, down almost 8 percent from the same period in 2008.

As the job market improves, the apartment industry could benefit from lower homeownership rates. The under-35 crowd has long been a promising rental demographic, and the so-called “echo boomer”—or millennial—generation is larger in numbers than the baby boomers.

In the University of Utah study, Metropolitan Research Center Director Arthur C. Nelson predicts the number of rental-home units in the United States will grow 48 percent in the next 10 years, while owner-occupied homes will grow only 17 percent.

Apartment owners aren’t seeing progress yet: The national vacancy rate hit 7.8 percent in the third quarter, the highest quarterly posting in more than two decades. Part of the problem is a growing inventory of foreclosed homes and condos now offered for rent.

In Indianapolis, the vacancy rate stands at 10.7 percent, and Tikijian Associates predicts it will jump to 11.1 percent in 2010.

“It’s more driven by jobs than anything else,” Tikijian said. “If you don’t have a job, you can’t afford your own place.”

During the last five years, college grads considered part of the millennial generation bought houses quickly, seeing them as investments and feeling pressure that renting was fiscally unwise. Even if they have a job, more young folks are expected to wait longer before switching from an apartment to a house.

Apartment owners hoping to capitalize in the long run have more pressing concerns.

Moody’s estimates that apartment values have fallen as much as 40 percent from their highs in 2007, meaning many complexes that have loans coming due in the next few years may not get refinanced unless the owners invest new capital to make up for lost value.

Getting new projects financed is next to impossible, but that could have a bright side for existing owners: If demand catches up with supply, values could begin to stabilize, Tikijian said.

The United States would have to add 2.3 million new homeowners in the next six years just to maintain the current rate of homeownership, LaMotte said.

An $8,000 government incentive for first-time buyers has lured some buyers, but it probably won’t be enough to turn back a demographic shift. At the same time more young buyers are opting to rent, aging boomers are looking to downsize, often to apartments or retirement communities.

The government will continue to offer its own incentives to encourage homeownership. President Obama in November signed into law an extension of the $8,000 tax credit for first-time buyers and extended a new credit, of $6,500, to entice those who have owned their home for at least five years to move up to a new home.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT